unfounded under the aforementioned article nor inadmissible on any other grounds. 94. The instant case must therefore be declared admissible. IX. MERITS 95. The Court now proceeds to examine each of the human rights allegedly violated by the Defendant State, taking into consideration the questions the Applicant puts to the Court's decision. a) The alleged violation of Articles 2 and 6 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) by the violation of the Applicant's personal freedom: 96. In the instant case, the Applicant alleged that in 2013, armed men attacked the military barracks in Agadez (Niger Republic). The defence and security forces discovered that the attackers spent the night before the attack in the Applicant’s house, so he was notified that he was being prosecuted by the Public Prosecutor's Office before the Niamey High Court for complicity in murder and assassination and association with criminals linked to a terrorist group. That he was charged for these same crimes and arrested on June 13, 2013, by the investigating judge of the Anti-Terrorism chamber of the Niamey Special High Court. That after seven years of detention, the Applicant has not only not been tried, but remains in the pre-trial detention, in violation of Article 605(8) of the Niger Code of Criminal Procedure (Law No. 2016 21 of June 16, 2016), because his case is pending before the Counter-terrorism Control Chamber, which is only a court of second instance in pre-trial matters in Niger. To this date, no judgment referring the case back to the Chamber for trial has been delivered, in violation of the procedural rules laid down by Niger's domestic positive law, but also by international law. 19